Alcohol Law Enforcement: What
Works? What’s Promising? What
Doesn’t Work?
Dr Phil Hadfield
Director: www.philhadfield.co.uk
Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Leeds University
Overview of the
International Research
Evidence
1. What
are the main approaches
to alcohol law enforcement?:
2. What Works?
3. What’s Promising?
4. What Doesn’t Work?
Alcohol Law Enforcement:
Proactive and Reactive Elements
The Policy Mix
Influencing supply and demand (legal
framework to control availability-times and
places, pricing and advertising); attempts to
influence social norms and drinking practices –
Per Capita Consumption and drinking styles.
Achieving compliance – Self-regulation,
formal sanction, ‘partnership’ with industry
What Works?
Increasing the cost of alcohol
 Restrictions on outlet density
 Restrictions on hours of sale
 Lower legal blood alcohol levels for
driving
 Identification and Brief Advice
programmes
These approaches are supported by a
convincing body of research and
evaluation internationally

What’s Promising?



Sustained regulatory action on server /
management responsibility, backed by flexible,
graduated sanctions.
Infrastructure to support the Night-time economy
– effective and secure public transport, cultural
events programmes to activate street life and
increase social mix.
Third-party policing / outreach work/ emergency
health care (increases presence of capable
guardians).
These approaches show promise in the ‘grey’
literature but require systematic evaluation
What Doesn’t Work?
Voluntary ‘Codes of Practice’ for licensed
premises and place-marketing for nightlife areas.
 Single-issue initiatives (eg police dispersal
powers / summary fines can see displacement and
repetitive action against the same individuals)
 Short-term initiatives (for example, on server
responsibility, or low-level street disorder)
 Educative campaigns targeting at young adult
revellers
These approaches show very limited or negative
outcomes in the research literature

Barriers to the Effective
Enforcement of Alcohol Laws






Legal wording of the legislation (eg. in England
server must ‘knowingly’ serve to drunks)
Lack of resources / political will / ‘champions’
Concerns that enforcement will damage
relationships with industry ‘partners’-often on-going,
one-to-one relationships.
Sympathy for low wage bar staff
A belief that self-regulation can be effective – ‘if only
it can be done properly’
Fear of expensive, complex litigation – is the
licence/permit regarded as the property of the
business?
Conclusion: The Need for WellInformed Local Pragmatism



The importance of local flexibility and sustained
action within a wider national/regional legal
framework
Lack of evaluation to a ‘scientific standard’ need
not impede local-level innovation
But, Local data gathering/monitoring and
intelligence is essential – substance choices,
social scenes/norms, outlet densities, support
structures etc. vary widely between and within
cities.
Multi-Component Communitybased Programmes







A strategic framework and theoretical basis for action;
The identification of problems defined at local levels;
A programme of coordinated action (projects) to address the issue
based on an integrative programme design where individual
interventions run in combination with each other and/or are sequenced
together over time;
Identification, mobilization and co-ordination of appropriate agencies,
stakeholders and local communities;
Clearly defined aims, objectives, indicators and measures of
effectiveness for the programme as a whole (although individual
projects or activities will also have specified aims, objectives and
outcome measures);
Evaluation as an integral part of the programme from the start;
Sustained commitment, implementation, and development of the
programme over a period of several years.
Recent Research on Alcohol
Enforcement in the UK / Some
Successful Initiatives
Dr Phil Hadfield
Visiting Senior Research Fellow,
Leeds University
Director: www.philhadfield.co.uk
Overview
Drinking Trends (England and Wales)
Recent research
Home Office/KPMG review of Social
Responsibility Standards (2008)
Portman Group study of enforcement of
existing alcohol-related legislation (2011)
Successful Initiatives
Licence Review (Westminster)
‘Traffic light warning system’ (Cardiff)
Lost Orders? : Law Enforcement
and Alcohol in England and
Wales
Final Report to The Portman Group
August 2011
Dr Phil Hadfield and Dr Fiona Measham
Average weekly units 1998-2006 by old counting method
Weekly units
of alcohol
Managers
& professionals: 13.5
(GLS
2009)workers: 10.7
Manual
Extending the weekend –
‘Preloading’
Pre-loading in Lancashire, UK
(Measham et al., 2010)



58% had drink at home/friend’s house
before coming out
Consumed an average of 8.1 units
alcohol (by women & men) in 2.0 hours
before coming out – about a bottle of
white wine
Pre-loading occurs more amongst
women & younger drinkers
Also studies in London (Hadfield, et al.,
2010) and Glasgow (Forsyth, 2010)
Home Office/KPMG (2008)





Social Responsibility Standards launched Nov
2005 in conjunction with implementation of
LA2003
Team of 28 researchers conducted covert
observations in nearly 600 premises in 8
locations across a 5 day period, to see if SRS
adhered to & fit for purpose
Negative: poor practices, re. promotions,
serving intoxicated customers, glass & litter,
particularly in on-trade town centre 18-25s
‘vertical drinking’ establishments
Positive: age restrictions increasingly
effectively enforced in on & off-trade;
community pubs with inter-generational
drinking & pub games
 Mandatory conditions at national level
(2010), with local government-led
implementation
Home Office/KPMG (2008)




1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

SRS not consistently adopted. The commercial imperative generally
overrode adherence eg. inducements to drink more & faster, allow
under-age people entry to premises & serve intoxicated people;
SRS had negligible impact in reducing bad practice or promoting good
practice, lacked focus, confusing mix of regulatory & voluntary
provisions, not cross referenced to LA2003 & inconsistent enforcement;
No evidence could be found of a direct causal link between SRS & a
reduction in alcohol-related harm;
In considering the way forward the following criteria are important:
A new model should enhance the partnership approach between
industry and non-industry stakeholders at national & local level;
Industry requirements should be consistently nationally & locally
enforceable & capable of independent external monitoring;
Any non-statutory requirements on industry should have clear links to
the legal framework for the industry;
Any change to SRS should encompass all parts of the industry and not
be limited to signatory members;
Any future initiative should seek to put consumers in a knowledgeable &
influential position to support responsible drinking;
Suggested model based on local government approach working to
national standards & conditions laid down by central government.
Portman Research 2010







Legal compliance & corporate social responsibility, enforcement
activities in E&W are directed at symptoms of some aspects of drinking
culture & retail practice. Enforcement is necessary, but not sufficient, in
that it is unable to address causes of unlawful or excessive demand;
Law enforcement & regulation works best when embedded in
community focused multi-component programmes that encompass
broader approaches to harm reduction;
Our research underlines the importance of allowing space within this
framework for local innovation, with bespoke initiatives to provide ‘local
solutions to local problems’;
Effective community focused programmes involve partnership working
between agencies, organisations & individuals, including formal
statutory partnerships;
The licensed trade had a clear interest in helping reduce alcohol-related
harms because the side effects of excessive drinking could have a
direct effect on working environments of staff, sustainability of
businesses & relations with regulatory authorities;
It is important that partners ‘buy in to the programme by making a
sufficient investment of time, personnel & financial resources, requiring
a clear understanding of symptoms & causes of alcohol-related harm
locally & the necessary division of labour;
Although some national multiple retailers bemoaned the variety of local
interpretations of the licensing laws our data points to the inevitability
and desirability of ‘local cultures of regulation’.
Portman 2





The necessity for regulatory and enforcement decisions to be made
on the basis of evidence emerged as one of the strongest lessons
from this research. Individual initiatives around alcohol enforcement
at local & national level is rarely subject to formal scientific
measurement & evaluation;
In relation to certain offences, eg. underage drinking, proxy sales &
serving of alcohol to intoxicated persons, we found a clear propensity
amongst enforcement agencies to target alcohol suppliers rather
than the consumers. Confusion was expressed about test purchase
operations guidelines published by LACORS & HO;
Our interviewees regarded the prosecution of members of the public
for breaches of LA2003 to be too expensive & time consuming.
Courts were seen as unsupportive of such prosecutions, fines would
be minimal & resources required to obtain the necessary evidence
for conviction were seen as disproportionately great;
The issue of imposing ‘banishment’ from licensed premises on
identified consumers revealed differences in experience & context
when comparing metropolitan, tourist, small town & rural areas;
Overarching area-based regulations & powers, eg. Dispersal Zones
or Cumulative Impact Areas, were more important and relevant in
large urban areas. In smaller towns, enforcement activity was more
often focused around the establishment of personal relationships
between regulator & regulated (in the case of licensed premises) and
the police & policed (in the case of alcohol-related offenders).
Portman 3





Re police powers for drinking in public places, some interviewees were
concerned about displacement, tendency to recidivism & general inability of
area- and person-specific powers to address underlying causes of drinkrelated crime & disorder;
HO consultation on ‘ rebalancing ’ LA2003 seen as symptomatic of
continued (over) focus on public manifestations of UK alcohol-related
problems;
Community-based, multi-component programmes integrating regulatory &
enforcement activity with local efforts to influence drinking culture, social
norms, diversity of local facilities & urban design and services, were seen as
more progressive and potentially effective;
Local partnerships were taking the lead in such approaches despite
daunting centrally imposed budgetary constraints. A key obstacle for
proactive partnerships was ensuring programmes were sustainable. A lack
of continuous funding & political commitment were 2 key obstacles to
achieving objectives, but such interventions gathered momentum only over
longer periods of time;
Many interviewees were acutely aware of need to influence drinking cultures
within local social scenes. But off-the-shelf national promotional materials &
brief intervention programmes were not considered to be designed in ways
which most effectively engage local target audiences.
Licence Review (Westminster
City Council )





Reviews of a licence can be called by police,
environmental health service, or by local residents
This is usually on the basis of crime and disorder or
public nuisance
Reviews involve the licensing authority looking at the
licence ‘afresh’ – a large number of ‘conditions’ can be
placed upon the licence, including restriction of hours.
Licence holders can appeal – the case is then heard in
a magistrates’ court.
Conditions are enforceable. The threat of Review is a
deterrent that encourages compliance.
‘Traffic Light’ Warning System
(Cardiff Police)
Key Principles:
Data-driven
Transparent and accountable
Equity of treatment
Punishment and reward built-in
Graduated range of sanctions
Targeted use of police / partner
resources
Cost – effective